Soros tried to overturn Arizona’s new election law with a ballot proposal.
The California Supreme Court said he didn’t have enough signatures for his November ballot initiative.
Proposition 210, a ballot proposal backed by George Soros to reverse Arizona’s new election integrity law, cannot be on the November ballot owing to a lack of valid signatures, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday.
Arizona is one of the states that decided following the 2020 election that legislative adjustments were needed to make it easy to vote but hard to cheat.
In Arizona, ballot initiatives can override legislation approved by elected legislatures. Many of these measures are rejected by politicians.
George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and Way to Win, which claims responsibility for Democrat gains in 2020, supported a ballot measure through Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections. Well-funded activists submitted 475k signatures.
Conservatives questioned the signatures. The Arizona Supreme Court ordered the case back to a Maricopa County judge after litigation. The trial judge ruled that the organizers barely met the required 239,926 signatures last week.
On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that it “could not verify the trial court’s validity rate” and ordered the judge to explain his calculation by Friday midday. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the ballot proposal lacked enough lawful signatures because the trial judge failed to defend his estimates.
Soros-backed legislation would have eliminated Arizona’s election integrity standards for 2024.
Coalition efforts defeated Soros’s idea. Scot Mussi, head of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, filed the complaint. His group won a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court win against another ballot issue. Jason Snead of the Honest Elections Project, Jessica Anderson of Heritage Action, and other election integrity advocates endorsed Mussi.
Thankfully, conservatives questioned these signatures. This battle was waged and won there, protecting the new Arizona election law for this election and the next one in two years.
I wonder how much the trial judge was compensated for his fraudulent estimate.